9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The present writ petition has been filed to declare the impugned order-in-original No. 26/2022-23(ST), dated 20.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 1 and also set aside the demand notice, dated 07.08.2023 vide reference No. IV/16/01/02/2023 issued under the provisions of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under: 3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of bare chilled/conditioner water piping of M.S. Heavy class complete with fitting etc. The petitioner was registered vide Service Tax registration No. AAICM7663ESD001 under the category of maintenance or repair service under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order only when the bank attachment notice was received by the petitioner on 17.08.2023. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the present writ petition and petitioner prays this Court to condone the delay in the interest of justice. He further contended that show-cause notice, dated 30.12.2020, which was said to have been issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order was not received by the petitioner. 6. Heard Sri Gadipelli Prahlad, learned counsel representing Sri Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Swapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, Special Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Gadi Praveen Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that petitioner would be put to hardship and also incur substantial loss, if the impugned order as well as demand notice are not set aside and thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, Ms. B. Swapna Reddy representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that show-cause notice was sent to the registered e-mail of the petitioner on 31.12.2020. Therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate that show-cause notice was not served on him. She further submitted that notice for personal hearing was sent on 04.04.2022, 28.04.2022 and 07.05.2022 to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing and these notices were served on the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that no pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al hearing and also file reply to show-cause notice vide letters, dated 29.03.2022, 25.04.2022 and 06.05.2022 respectively. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued by the respondent No. 1 and therefore, respondent No. 1 proceeded with adjudication and passed the impugned order- in-original, dated 20.06.2022. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner received the impugned order, dated 20.06.2022 on 13.12.2022, which is approximately about six (06) months after passing of order. However, the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the impugned order. The petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of two months from the date of communication o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
